The Dead Intent of the Framers

The tragedy of Doug Ford looks less like a tragedy after all, with the Court of Appeal for Ontario staying the decision of Justice Belobaba that ruled Ford’s planned council cut unconstitutional. The use of the notwithstanding clause is off the table, for now. But it would be hasty to move on too quickly. How academics and lawyers spoke about the planned use of the notwithstanding clause provides a window into how we justify and critique the use of state power.

For example, some 80 law school faculty across Canada came out against the Ford government’s planned invocation  of s.33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in an open letter. The faculty, relying on a strong-form version of originalism (original intent, long outdated as a form of originalist reasoning), argue that Premier Ford transgressed the intention of the Charter’s framers:

The framers of the Constitution included the notwithstanding clause as a compromise to achieve consensus. But, they firmly believed that the notwithstanding clause would only be used in exceptional circumstances. This has indeed been the case since the Charter’s enactment in 1982.

If the excerpt above seems an insignificant part of the letter, the faculty use the original intent of the (yet undefined framers) to define a political norm that governs the frequency of use of the notwithstanding clause.

In 36 years, the notwithstanding clause has rarely been used. Liberal governments, NDP governments and Conservative governments at the federal and provincial levels have all been extremely reluctant to use the notwithstanding clause. Faced with judicial decisions declaring legislation unconstitutional, governments in Canada have sought alternative ways of bringing their laws into compliance with the Charter. This is precisely what the framers of the Constitution had hoped and predicted. The notwithstanding clause was only to be used in the most exceptional circumstances.

The faculty, to their credit, do not attack the legality of Ford’s planned use of the notwithstanding clause. So long as the form requirements are met, the notwithstanding clause can be invoked. Rather, they seek to define, using framers’ intent, the political boundaries that should govern this extraordinary power.

At first blush, I agree that the invocation of the notwithstanding clause should be subject to political norms and should be critically examined by citizens. There should be a justification of the use of the notwithstanding clause. This is different from the sort of legal restriction on statutory decision-making explained in Roncarelli v Duplessis. In an administrative law sense, state power is subject to the law, and the exercise of powers contemplated by statute are controlled by that statute.  That analogy is ill-fitting for a power unrooted to statute that exists in the text of Constitution itself. Nonetheless, one can meaningfully argue that a political norm of justification should accompany the use of the override. As I’ve said in this space before, Premier Ford has failed on this score.

The interesting part of the faculty letter, though, is not the substantive argument. Rather, it is the analytical footpath. The faculty seek to call up the live hands of Jean Chretien et al who “framed” the Charter to support their point of view. In fact, Chretien, former Ontario Attorney General  Roy McMurtry, and former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow (the individuals who bartered the notwithstanding clause into the Charter through the famous Kitchen Accord) have come out to say that  the notwithstanding clause should only be used “in exceptional situations, and only as a last resort.”

It is surprising that a fairly large contingent of the Canada law professoriate endorse the proposition that the intent of the framers should mean anything in this case. Others have written about the problems with original intent originalism—determining the class of relevant “framers,” determining how to mediate between different intents among these “framers,” determining the level of generality at which intent is expressed, and the list goes on. These practical problems underline a broader theoretical problem–why, in a normative sense, should the views of Jean Chretien et al bind us today? How can we be assured that these “framers” are speaking on behalf of the meaning adopted by Parliament and the legislatures?

Even if we should accept that this intent leads to the acceptance of the relevant political norms, there is no evidence offered in the letter that other potential “framers” of the Charter shared the view of Chretien, Romanow, and McMurtry as to the use of the notwithstanding clause. For example, Brian Peckford (former Premier of Newfoundland who apparently presented the proposal of the provinces to Prime Minister Trudeau), wrote a piece arguing that Premier Ford’s use of the notwithstanding clause was perfectly appropriate. He made no mention of any understanding or political commitment on the part of any other Premiers or parties as to the expected use of the notwithstanding clause. In this sense, the framers’ intent means nothing; it is dead in terms of helping to interpret even the political norms surrounding the use of the notwithstanding clause.

This is a dangerous form of originalist reasoning adopted by the faculty, and should be used sparingly with appropriate caution. It is open to abuse. Lawrence Solum argues that theories of originalism have two features (1) fixation and (2) constraint. That is, the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed at the time of framing; and in terms of original meaning originalism, the original public meaning of the constitutional text constrains the constitutional practice of courts. To my mind, the sort of originalism relied on by the faculty fails to both fixate and constrain constitutional meaning, precisely because there is at least an open question as to the expected legal and political practice of the notwithstanding clause. There is even a question as to who should fit into the relevant class of framers, and who should not. In this sense, the form of originalist reasoning invited by the faculty is not, in substance, different from living tree constitutionalism—unfixed and unconstrained. It is an invitation to dress up the desired political outcomes of its proponents with the imprimatur of a legal doctrine.

Putting aside the faculty focus on political norms, if framers’ intent is accepted as an appropriate doctrinal model, the debate in courts will focus on which particular framers support one side of a case or another. Will some lawyers introduce affidavit evidence from Jean Chretien? Another side, Brian Peckford? Rather than focusing on the meaning of words in their context—their original meaning—framers’ intent will incentivize lawyers to spin historical tales, told through the intent of those whose view may not actually represent the state of the law.

That said, we shouldn’t bristle at the opening provided by the faculty. There is, perhaps for the first time, a willingness to accept forms of originalism. If the faculty intended to fix the constitutional political practice of the notwithstanding clause at the time of framing, that intent is better vindicated by original meaning (to the extent it can be discerned) precisely because it fixes and constrains. Of course, a rational person would rather bet on a system of rules that prevents political hijacking of legal interpretation, because political power can be wielded in any direction. A safer gamble—a better methodology—is a form of doctrine less amenable to political reasoning. Given the faculty acceptance of some model along these lines, I look forward to seeing how a focus on fixation and constraint can influence other areas of the Charter.

Upcoming Events

Talks and discussions in Saskatoon and Edmonton

This is just a quick note to let readers know about some events this coming week.

First, on Monday, I will give a talk on “The Supremacy of That Which Is Highest and Best in Man” ― or, in other words, freedom of conscience ― at the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. The event starts at noon in Room 150. It’s organized by the Runnymede Society ― for whom I already spoke on this issue a couple of years ago. Of course, much has happened since then; the demands various branches of the Canadian state make on the conscience of those subject to their respective jurisdictions have only expanded. As Lord Acton noted in the same lecture on the Beginning of the Modern State from which the title of my talk is drawn, “[t]he passion for power over others can never cease to threaten mankind, and is always sure of finding new and unforeseen allies in continuing its martyrology”. In my talk, I will both discuss the unchanging nature and claims of conscience itself, and touch on the most recent attacks on it in Canada.

On Wednesday, I will be doing another Runnymede event, this one a discussion entitled “‘Dirty word’ or dirty little secret: originalism in Canada”, at the University of Alberta. This will also start at noon, in LC190. The event’s title is recycled from a Runnymede talk I once gave at the Université de Montréal, but the idea here is to have a conversation on constitutional interpretation ― and why it’s not all as simple as the purveyors of the living tree mythology would have you believe. Despite setbacks, such as the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Comeau, 2018 SCC 15, this is an exciting time to be an originalist in Canada. Between scholarship by more or less subversive-minded people such as yours truly, and the accessible publication of materials related to the making of our constitution both online (notably by the Primary Documents project) and in dead-tree form (that is, Adam Dodek’s The Charter Debates), the dead constitution is alive and kicking.

Finally, on Thursday, I will be taking part in a panel discussion with Howard Kislowicz and Jennifer Raso called “Dissecting TWU“, organized by the Centre for Constitutional Studies. This one starts at 5:30PM in Howie McLennan Ross Hall. Between the three of us, we will, I believe, cover many of the important aspects, both constitutional and administrative, of the recent Trinity Western dilogy (and in particular of Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32). For my own part, I will focus on the way in which the Trinity Western decisions expand the powers of administrative decision-makers, allowing them to appoint themselves as enforcers of “human rights” and constitutional obligations against those who were never supposed to be bound by them.

I am looking forward to these events, and am grateful to those who have helped organize them ― especially Joanna Baron at the Runnymede Society and Patricia Paradis at the Centre for Constitutional Studies. If you can make it, please come, and say hello. It’s always great to meet readers of this blog.

 

Girouard v CJC: An Administrative State Coup?

The administrative state is not a constitutional mandate

A few weeks ago in this space, I mooted the arguments that could stand against the constitutionality of the administrative state. I alluded to an argument—percolating in Canada—that the administrative state could be mandated by the Constitution. I wrote this piece in a fully hypothetical mindset. But I forgot about a case in the Federal Court, Girouard v Canadian Judicial Council, in which the Canadian Judicial Council [the CJC] essentially attempted to constitutionalize its status as a statutory administrative tribunal by making it beyond judicial review. The Federal Court thankfully rebuffed the argument.

First, the brief facts. The CJC is a statutory body that has authority to review the conduct of federally appointed superior court judges. The CJC is made up of 39 members—chief justices, associate chief justices, and other senior judges—and is chaired by Chief Justice Wagner.

When a complaint is made against a member of the judiciary, the CJC has authority to investigate. It could do so through an Inquiry Committee [IC]. According to the Judges Act, which governs the CJC, the CJC may appoint an IC consisting of its membership or members of the bar of a province having at least ten years standing (s. 63(3)). After the inquiry has been completed, the CJC will report the conclusions and make recommendations to the responsible Minister (s.65).

Two inquiries were completed in the case of Justice Girouard, a judge of the Quebec Superior Court. In 2012, Justice Girouard was caught on a video that allegedly showed him involved in a drug deal. The CJC was asked to review Justice Girouard’s conduct. The first inquiry rejected the allegations against Justice Girouard, but raised concerns about the credibility and reliability of the facts reported by Justice Girouard. The CJC accepted the conclusion of the IC. In 2016, the Minister and Minister of Justice of Quebec filed a joint CJC complaint regarding Justice Girouard’s lack of credibility during the first IC. A second IC was convened, which found that Justice Girouard was not forthcoming during the first inquiry process. The CJC accepted that conclusion in its recommendation report to the Minister. In the main judicial review, Justice Girouard challenged the IC report to the CJC and the CJC report to the Minister, among other decisions.

The case here was a motion to strike brought by the CJC, which essentially argued that the CJC was a superior court, and not a federal board, commission or tribunal subject to judicial review under the Federal Courts Act. To the CJC, the Judges Act expressly notes that the CJC is “deemed” to be a superior court. Apart from the Judges Act, the CJC also argued that judicial independence as a constitutional principle compels the conclusion that the Federal Court has no authority to review the CJC, composed as it is of s.96 judges. The Federal Court rejected these arguments, concluding that the CJC is a statutory federal body subject to judicial review under the Federal Courts Act. Relatedly, the Federal Court concluded that the CJC does not possess the traditional indicators of a superior court, despite the fact that its membership is drawn from the ranks of s.96 judges.

The legal arguments presented by the CJC, to my mind, are problematic on three fronts: the implication of the CJC’s argument runs into problems at the level of fundamental principle; second, on specific legal points; and third, on the context in which this decision was made.

The first issue: if we accept the CJC’s argument, we can conclude that at least some of the administrative state is constitutionalized, simply because a s.96 judge (acting non-judicially) is on the committee. This is because the CJC argues that it is superior court, unreviewable without a right of appeal, despite being a body created by Parliament. Specifically, the CJC argues that the Federal Court cannot review the CJC because it does not fall into the definition of a federal board, commission, or tribunal in the Federal Courts Act. According to the CJC, this seems to be for two reasons: (1) because, properly interpreted, the definition does not encompass s.96 courts and (2) a principle of judicial independence precludes the Federal Court from exercising review over s.96 judges.

Both arguments run into what I call the fundamental principle of all administrative law: its statutory character, open to amendment or rescission at any time by the legislature. Tomorrow, for example, Parliament could remove the Immigration and Refugee Board, because the Constitution does not require the maintenance of a body to process refugee applications. We would revert to a pre-administrative law world, in which the executive (the responsible Minister) would process humanitarian and compassionate applications, for example. Put differently, and except in defined circumstances (such as those in Vriend, where Parliament has already spoken on a matter), the Constitution does not ordinarily require a legislature to positively act, much less to establish a robust administrative state. If the CJC is not open to judicial review under the ordinary channels, its actions are insulated from review, taking on a constitutional character. In the ordinary course, we would reject this argument—both on principle and because the Supreme Court has said that Parliament cannot establish s.96 courts (Crevier).

Why does this matter? While the CJC did not expressly argue this, its argument implites that the CJC can be put beyond review. An administrative actor created by statute should never be put beyond review, new-fangled theories of “constitutional structure” and administrative law constitutionalism notwithstanding. In constitutional democracies, government power must be subject to law. This means a neutral arbiter must determine if government properly exercised power according to law–the Rule of Law, at the very least, encompasses this principle of legality. If an administrative decision-maker, no matter the rank of its members or their august titles, is put beyond review, we approach a government by executive fiat and prerogative, not a government of laws adopted lawfully.

I see this case as an extreme example of the modern trend of administrative law: towards more regulation and more administrative decision-makers that have court-imposed “unlimited” powers (see West Fraser, at para 11). Once we accept even one instance of such a decision-maker, vested by statute, we have to conclude that no court can speak ill of that “unlimited” decision-maker. Obviously this has profound effect on the Rule of Law, individual liberties, and due process. Take this case–dissenting members of the CJC were concerned that certain anglophone members of the CJC could not evaluate the entire record, which was in French. This implicates the fairness of the process for Justice Girouard. A purpose of judicial review is to ensure this basic fairness, but if we make administrative decision-makers beyond reproach, we sit them alongside the basic law of the land–the Constitution. And of course, legislative bodies acting alone cannot establish new constitutional provisions.

The only wrinkle in the Girouard case is the membership of the CJC—in part, s.96 judges. A principle of judicial independence does require some separation between the judicial branch and the other branches of government. Resting on this, the CJC argued that s.96 judges—whenever acting in any capacity—exercise powers as a member of a court of inherent jurisdiction. But the CJC is established not as a loose confederacy of s.96 judges acting in a judicial, adjudicative role, deciding individual cases and applying the law. This is the hallmark of the judicial function (see Residential Tenancies at 743). Rather, it is established as a statutory investigatory institution, vested with powers only so far as the statute allows. The CJC has no other inherent power—no constitutional power to vindicate a right with a remedy—and has no supervisory jurisdiction, other powers typical of a superior court. It is acting only as a sort of self-governing professional body for judges, according to the terms of the statute. In absence of any exercise of a judicial function, and given the statutory basis of the CJC, there’s no reason to believe that the CJC should be constitutionalized as a s.96 court simply because, in another capacity, members of the CJC exercise judicial functions–notwithstanding the specific facts of the Supreme Court’s comments in Ranville (distinguished by the Federal Court).

In fact, the implication of the converse is absurd. The CJC stands and falls as a whole–as an institution. As I note above, the CJC ICs, for which the CJC sought immunity from review, is in part made up of s.96 judges. But the ICs can also include members of the bar of 10 years standing. The CJC’s argument implies that this does not matter so long as there are s.96 judges on the IC, the IC and the CJC together exercise s.96 functions, acting as members of a court of inherent jurisdiction. This sets up an interesting set of incentives. In order to make statutory bodies immune from review, Parliament could set administrative decision-makers composed in part by s.96 judges—perhaps composed of just one s.96 judge among other lawyers. On the CJC argument, this body would be beyond review without a right of appeal. Parliament could use the Constitution to game the fundamental principle of administrative law.

The real question is whether judicial review by the Federal Court infringes the judicial independence of a s.96 judge. Judicial independence has some textual mooring (ss. 96-100 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and s.11(d) of the Charter), but it is an “unwritten constitutional principle,” which guarantees “administrative independence, financial security, and security of tenure” (Provincial Judges Reference, at para 118). The CJC says that security of tenure is at stake, as removal of a judge requires an impartial process. The Court in the Provincial Judges Reference said something similar regarding financial security, but I am not sure the same result is compelled in these circumstances. It is not as of the Federal Court is some government administrative body that could allow the executive to interfere in the workings of the CJC—thus breaking the wall that should be set up between judiciary and executive. The Federal Court is itself independent. In the ordinary course, again, constitutional principles do not compel a particular legislative process or system. It simply requires a reality; that judges and executive/legislatures be separate.

Finer legal points also work against the CJC (though I note the CJC’s very sophisticated statutory analysis-see the factum below). The CJC argued that it is not subject to review in the Federal Court because the Federal Courts Act expressly excludes s.96 judges—and the power of the CJC is rooted not in a federal law (the Judges Act) but in a constitutional principle. The CJC says that if the Judges Act were removed tomorrow, the authority of the judiciary to investigate other judiciary members would remain. Again, on this I recoil instinctively. The CJC makes decisions as an institution—this the CJC recognizes. That institution, separate from its individual members, is created by statute. The Judges Act is one statutory manifestation that implements the principle of judicial independence, but is not the only one and perhaps not even the best one.

The CJC also points to s.63 of the Judges Act, which says that the CJC is deemed to be a “superior court.” In written argument, the CJC spends a lot of time discussing this deeming provision. I’m alive to the idea in statutory interpretation that a deeming provision creates a virtually irrebuttable legal fiction, but an unconstitutional statutory provision (deeming or no) cannot stand. An attempt by Parliament, through a deeming provision, to establish a s.96 court runs into constitutional problems on federalism grounds and on the Crevier grounds noted above. Even if this was not so, the particular deeming provision in this case is similar to ones that exist in other statutes. For example, the Canadian Transportation Agency similarly has “…all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior court” (Canadian Transportation Act, s.25). Yet no one argues that this provision alone grants the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to act as a superior court beyond powers pertaining to the procedures of the Court.

Finally, the context of the decision indicates that the CJC is aware of its statutory character. As noted by Paul Warchuk, the CJC tried once—the right way—to amend the Judges Act to make itself immune from review. A few years ago, the Minister of Justice sought recommendations on how to amend the Judges Act. The CJC recommended at that time that it be put beyond the ordinary judicial review procedure, subject only to an appeal to a statutory appeal body.

The CJC failed in these efforts, which basically mirror its submissions in Girouard. But implicit in this attempt is a recognition by the CJC that it is a statutory body subject to review by the Federal Courts system like any other federal body. After all, Federal Court judges are superior court judges (see s.4 of the Federal Courts Act, which establishes the Federal Court as a “superior court of record”). I’m not sure what changed between this recognition of its status and the Girouard case.

Overall, while counsel for the CJC argued the best case it could and ably so (whatever my opinion is worth), I’m less inclined to support the argument because of its implication: a further extension of the administrative state into unknown terrain. The coup failed this time, but as I’ve written elsewhere, the administrative state is a fickle bedfellow.

NB: To be fair, I’ve attached the CJC’s submissions below. Thanks to Alyssa Tomkins, counsel for the CJC, for sending them over.

Mémoire CCM

McCaw: Declarations of Invalidity in the ONSC

Can one ONSC judge bind another?

In R v McCaw, 2018 ONSC 3464, the Ontario Superior Court decided that constitutional declarations of invalidity are binding on other judges of the Ontario Superior Court. The case concerned s.33.1 of the Criminal Code, under which Parliament narrowed the common law defence of extreme intoxication set out in  Daviault, denying it in general intent casesIn McCaw, the Court was faced with conflicting authority: previous Ontario Superior Court decisions declared that s.33.1 of the Criminal Code infringed ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter, and that the infringement could not be saved by s.1. But these previous cases had all considered the issue anew, rather than considering it finally decided. McCaw centred on the effect of these previous cases: was s.33.1 unconstitutional for the purposes of this case? The court said yes, considering itself bound.

I do not propose to get into the facts of the case or any criminal law substance, except for the specific remedies question of one superior court judge binding another through a constitutional declaration of invalidity (inspired by discussions on Twitter!) Putting aside whether the Supreme Court’s remedies doctrine is sound, McCaw represents a faithful application of it, particularly the Court’s strong-form interpretation of s.52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 52 has been  interpreted to provide the courts power to issue declarations of invalidity, but textually provides that laws are of no force or effect to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution.

First, the McCaw court’s holding that it was bound by the previous ONSC authority on point is consistent with the operation of constitutional remedies—particularly declarations of invalidity. In Hislop, the Supreme Court confirmed that in most cases, courts granting constitutional declarations are operating in a “Blackstonian paradigm” (on this, see Dan Guttmann’s illuminating article). In the ordinary course, courts seek to resolve past wrongs. A typical case involves Party A claiming against Party B for Event C, which occurred in the past. A court discovers the law that applied to that past event. In the constitutional context, the Blackstonian paradigm essentially tells us that a law declared unconstitutional by a court was always unconstitutional, from the time of its enactment (Hislop, at para 83). And the Supreme Court confirmed this idea: a judicial declaration does not cause a legislative provision to be unconstitutional—rather, s.52(1) as a remedial authority dictates what is and isn’t constitutional (see Martin, at para 28). The judicial declaration is simply a recognition that s.52 always regarded the impugned provision as unconstitutional. This has particular effect in benefits cases, where claimants previously denied can claim retroactively.

At the same time, a declaration of invalidity also operates prospectively (Hislop, at para 82). For obvious reasons, the government cannot pursue causes of action under an unconstitutional statute after the judicial recognition that the statute is unconstitutional; nor can a court (itself subject to law) deny a defence to a claimant if it is unconstitutional to do so. So, if what the Supreme Court says is true, once a statute is recognized as unconstitutional, it is systemically unlawful reaching backwards and forwards. After the declaration, subsequent courts dealing with causes of action arising before or after the declaration are bound by s.52, which now views the provision as unconstitutional.

The timing question is central. If s.33.1 was always unconstitutional, and continues to be, a later judge dealing with a case is bound temporally. If a cause of action arose before the declaration (but the case is heard after), a claimant should have access to the common law defence (to the extent s.33.1 abridges it). If a cause of action arose after the declaration, the claimant should also have access to the defence because the declaration applies s.52 prospectively. Section 52 therefore has independent meaning.

I’m alive to the criticism: isn’t it wrong for one s.96 judge to bind another (or the hundreds of other) s.96 judges? In some specific remedial situations, this is true. But in those situations, we are talking only about the typical Party A vs Party B case, where the validity of a law is not impugned. Accordingly, the only remedy sought is personal. But if we are talking about the specific context of s.52, things are more complicated because of a second feature of s.52—its systemic application with virtually no exceptions, as opposed to personal remedies under s.24(1) of the Charter. This is a strong distinction drawn by the Supreme Court. As it confirmed in Martin, the unconstitutionality of a law is dealt with by s.52(1) independently. Section 52(1) confers no discretion on judges, and once a judge declares a law unconstitutional, s.52 operates to effectively remove it from the statute books completely (Ferguson, at para 65). If we accept this authority, we should view the McCaw problem not as one judge binding another judge in a typical horizontal stare decisis sense (or even a weaker judicial comity sense), but s.52 itself binding other judges. This is perfectly consistent with the hierarchy of laws, under which the Constitution binds all state actors. If this is true, one judge cannot later get out of the declaration of invalidity by simply reasoning around it. Similarly, the remedy for the Crown is to appeal the declaration, not collaterally attack it in a later proceeding.

Take the counterfactual and think about it in the context of the Supreme Court’s doctrine. If a subsequent Ontario Superior Court judge could conclude that s.33.1 is constitutional, even if a previous judge found it unconstitutional, the principle that no one should be subject to unconstitutional laws could be abridged. A subsequent judge could, in effect, conclude that a law is constitutional on certain facts—even though it has been previously found unconstitutional. But this is directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s own authority, which holds that a law rendered unconstitutional by s.52 is just that: unconstitutional. It cannot be patched up later on a case-by-case basis, and it is sufficient for the law to have an unconstitutional effect on one person to be unconstitutional in law (particularly under s.7). Put differently, if a law is unconstitutional in one regard, it is unconstitutional in all regards, past and present (subject to specific doctrines such as qualified immunity). The fortune or misfortune of drawing a later case and a later judge is, unfortunately, not sufficient to oust s.52.

There is room to criticize this strong-form interpretation of s.52. I don’t know if it necessary follows from the text of s.52 that a law unconstitutional in one regard is unconstitutional in all regards–for example, that we cannot have meaningful
“as-applied” remedies, as the Americans do. Section 52 simply says that unconstitutional laws are invalid to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution. Here, in the interstices of “extent of inconsistency,” is where the debate occurs. This phraseology justifies our understandings of remedies like severance and reading-in, but these are statutory remedies that apply to all persons equally. It seems to be a different order of business altogether for Judge B to disregard Judge A’s (operating in the same court) finding of unconstitutionality, unless we want to change what we mean by an “unconstitutional” law. Could it be that a law is unconstitutional to one person and not another?

There are many open questions here, some of which I hope are addressed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. But all this to say, I do not see McCaw as flatly wrong on the current understanding of constitutional remedies.

Rendering Unto the Judiciary

Justice Martineau’s recent article on judicial courage

In a recent piece published in the Western Journal of Legal Studies, Justice Martineau of the Federal Court puts forward a concept of “judicial courage” as a descriptive and normative claim about what judges do in a democracy. Judicial courage, to Justice Martineau, is an ideal that stands in contrast to judicial “conservatism” under which law is the complete answer to most or all cases [2]. To Justice Martineau, law is a necessary but insufficient condition for the flourishing of justice and democratic institutions. Instead, we also need a shared ethic or commitment towards a culture of constitutionalism, which judges help along by displaying “courage” in particular cases. Justice Martineau is drawn by a “liberal” version of the judiciary, imbued with moral authority rather than simple legal authority.

While Justice Martineau’s piece demonstrates a clear reflection of the issues at stake and his status as an eminent legal thinker, allow me to be skeptical of his core claim, as I read it: that courage can be a helpful descriptive and normative organizing principle. To me, judicial “courage” is far too subjective, and could ultimately give rise to unconstrained faith and power in a judiciary unbound by doctrine. There would need to be some limiting principle and definition to the ideal of “courage” to ensure that judges exercise it in proper cases.

This is not to say that the problem Justice Martineau addresses in his piece is unimportant. The piece uses the concept of judicial courage as an answer to a perennial problem: how do we deal with internal threats to the legal system from those sworn to uphold it? To Justice Martineau, courts are central in preventing the rise of these sorts of actors

I have no difficulty in endorsing his point of view. Judges have a duty to act responsibly. Detractors of “judicial activism” dismiss elitist thinking—particularly as it is opined by unelected members of the judiciary. People should put their faith in Congress or Parliament, who know better. But their optimistic reliance on the positive side of political virtue and wisdom ignores the transformative action of fortuna when power has become corrupted or concentrated in the hands of a sociopath. This can happen in any democracy [31].

My concern is the faith this puts in courts to almost always do the right thing. Just because the legislative branch can be manipulated does not mean that the judiciary cannot be, or that strong-form judicial review is necessarily the best remedy. As Vermeule argues, much of constitutional law can be construed as a form of risk management. Part of the risk of constitutional design is the risk posed by imperfect humans. For example, in designing the American constitution, some of the Federalist framers began from the presupposition that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm” of the system (The Federalist Papers, No. 10). To Hamilton, in fact, “No popular Government was ever without its Catalines & its Caesars. These are its true enemies.” Constitutionalism must start from the premise that there will be bad actors in the system, like a Caesar or Hitler, who might seek to use internal democratic channels to subvert the rights of others. This observation extends equally to the judiciary.

The Americans responded to this problem by adopting a strict separation of powers, in which no one branch could accumulate all power. The judiciary is obviously included in that system of limited government, restrained just as much as the legislature and executive. Why should we bank on such a system? Ex ante, the separation of powers is the best organizing principle on which to base a Constitution. A bill of rights will only be a “parchment guarantee” if any actor in the system can accumulate all the power. Before doing anything in a constitutional democracy, we’d want to insure against this risk.

We should be careful about tinkering with this machinery. For that reason, in a system of separation of powers, there should be good reasons for one branch to step into the territory of the others. Hamilton alluded to this possibility when he said that in cases of a weak government, it may need to “overstep the bounds” (on this point, see Vermeule’s recent paper) in cases of emergency. But the same goes for the judiciary. Extraordinary constitutional circumstances should exist before an unelected judicial branch interferes with the elected process if the separation of powers is a main organizing principle–and if we care about guarding against the risk of overreach.

And this is the rub of the matter. If it is “courageous” for courts to interfere with democratically-elected mandates that may be unfair, it is perhaps even more courageous for courts to stay their hand and let the democratic process unfold in service to the separation of powers. Which is true in a given situation should be subject to clear rules that guard against judicial overreach and limit the role of the judiciary to real instances of constitutional concern. But we are so far from this reality in Canada. I need not go over the Supreme Court’s sins in this regard, but the Court has failed to apply a consistent set of rules governing its judicial review function; sometimes tacitly accepting originalism, sometimes trotting out the living tree, all the while relaxing its approach to precedent.

To this comes Justice Martineau’s objection. A wholly rules-bound judiciary is likely to allow grave democratic injustices to stand. Hitler, after all, was a product of a democracy. Justice Abella has gone as far as to eschew the rule of law, instead proposing a “rule of justice.” To Justice Abella, the rule of law is “annoying” because it sanctioned the Holocaust, segregation, and other democratic evils. On her account (and Justice Martineau’s) courts always pursue justice, whereas the legislature will only do so if “justice” coincides with its own political interest

Direct democracy alone is an insufficient condition for a good society, if only for practical reasons. In fact, courts play an integral role in a properly separated system. This system, to Justice Martineau, must be vindicated by a culture of constitutionalism, in which the people agree to be bound by law [13]. The American framers agreed. But the real question is who should foster this belief. Justice Abella and Justice Martineau seem to think it is the role of courts to encourage this culture of constitutionalism; and even more, they seem to think that courts are uniquely suited to do so.

At risk of sacrilege, I think this puts too much faith in humans–the very risk the separation of powers guards against. To trust that the judiciary will always display “courage,” properly calibrated to the legal rule under consideration, is unrealistic. Judges will make mistakes, sometimes grievously so. This is a clear risk that is managed by the separation of powers. To be sure, the risks posed by legislative or executive abuse are different than those posed by courts, but they are no less concerning. Executive or legislative recalcitrance will be obvious, but judicial overreach is less so.

Instead, putting too much faith in the judiciary and expanding judicial power is much like eating chocolate cake. The cake is good at the moment, but later on it takes its toll. A court making up its own law will vindicate particular groups in the moment. But over the long term, a court unmoored by clear rules, directed only by “courage” or “justice,” could slowly eat away at the separation of powers and the role of elected legislatures until the culture of constitutionalism sought by Justice Martineau is really just a culture of court worship. Under this culture, courts take an expanded role, and citizens look to the courts to vindicate their particular versions of the good.

I fear we have come to this point in Canada. One need only look at the recent retirement of Chief Justice McLachlin as an example. Veneration of the Court is a veritable academic pastime, and too many view the judges as celebrities rather than fallible humans with a restricted role in the separation of powers. This is an implication of Justice Martineau’s invocation of “courage.” Without guiding rules, courage could mean many things to many different people. It could end up being a dangerous theory of judicial review that further politicizes and expands the role of courts.

In our system, there is no doubt that we need courageous judges, but what courage means in a system of separated powers is a complicated question. Without accounting for institutional realities, courage lacks definition as a descriptive and normative idea. Rather than putting our faith in judges, all should insist that actors within the political system stay true to their defined roles. Accordingly, for courage to be a helpful concept rather than a vessel for judges to fill with their own worldview, we’d need to develop clear doctrinal parameters on the concept.

Trinity Western: Is this the price of good doctrine?

 

In Trinity Western, the Court confirmed (to undoubted cries of agony) that its approach to judicial review of administrative decisions implicating Charter rights, set out in Doré, is nominally still good law. But in application, the Court significantly changed Doré.  It applied the typical tests developed in the context of constitutional challenges to legislation, not the new approach set out in Doré. One is forced to ask whether the ambitious Doré project worked out, or if it is one more example of the Supreme Court saying one thing and doing the opposite.

As a refresher, Doré held that the typical “two-step” approach to Charter adjudication does not apply in the case of an administrative decision engaging Charter rights. The typical approach, to the Court, was an awkward fit to the varied context of administrative decision-making [6]. Instead, the Court’s new approach started from the unassailable proposition that all administrative decision-makers are bound by law, most notably the Charter. Because administrative decisions are “always required to consider fundamental values” under the Charter, [35] a decision-maker is supposed to balance “Charter values with the statutory objectives” [55].  This was its answer to what courts should do when administrative decisions “implicate” Charter values [34].

On judicial review, the question was whether the balance was proportionate, nothing more or less. In effect, the Court merged administrative and constitutional review. But importantly, Doré said nothing else on when a Charter value arises, who has the burden of demonstrating the application of a Charter value on the facts, or what test a court applies to determine when a Charter value is engaged.

Specifically, the Court did not say that the tests which apply to Charter challenges of legislation apply in the context of administrative discretion. For example, Doré did not consider whether the typical test for s.2(b) of the Charter (the right at issue in Doré) applied on the facts.  While this may be because the test for freedom of expression is quite permissive, I think there is something else at play. The Court did not explain how a claimed Charter value becomes constitutionally cognizable in the context of a case. In fact, arguably, the application of the typical Charter breach tests would be contrary to the Doré project; the Court expressly said that its “more flexible administrative approach” was “more consistent with the nature of discretionary decision-making” and its varied contexts [37]. The application of court-made tests would be contrary to the supposed “deeply democratic” nature of Doré, which embraced a diffused form of constitutional decision-making, rejecting the idea that courts should undertake a de novo review of constitutional values on judicial review [51].

In the Court’s next case, Loyola, it introduced a new requirement.  Loyola concluded that the first question in the case of a constitutional challenge to the exercise of discretion is “whether the decision engages the Charter by limiting its protections” [39]. This first step was a prerequisite to a consideration of whether the statutory objectives and Charter rights were proportionately balanced by the decision-maker.  But this “preliminary question” was not alluded to in Doré. In other words, the Doré Court did not make it a prerequisite to determine whether a right was “limited.” Doré used the term “implicated.”

This might be semantic, but I tend to think otherwise. There is a qualitative difference between a right being “limited” and a right being “implicated.” The former implies a prima facie assessment of merit—an analysis of whether there is some element of disproportionality. On the other hand, rights can be implicated without a finding of a limitation requiring justification. In fact, the Court put the question in Doré as which approach to apply when “a party argues that Charter values are implicated on judicial review” [52] (my emphasis). Implication seems to simply mean an argument.

In a likely attempt to make this distinction clearer, lower courts after Loyola added a new bug: the application of the tests typically used by courts to analyze constitutional challenges to legislation.  In many ways, this is an understandable extension on the Loyola limitation requirement; these tests provide some doctrinal method by which to determine if a right is limited requiring justification.

Take E.T. v Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. The context was a freedom of religion claim against the decision of a school board. The typical test to determine a freedom of religion infringement under s.2(a) provides that: (1) the claimant must demonstrate that he has a sincere religious belief (2) the claimant must show that the impugned law interferes with these beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial and insubstantial (see Hutterian Brethren, at para 32). The Court of Appeal for Ontario concluded that while the claimant made out a sincere religious belief (the subjective component of the test), the claimant failed to satisfy that the infringement at play interfered with that sincere belief [33]. Justice Sharpe concluded that “[a]s I have found no interference with the appellant’s freedom of religion that would engage the protection of s.2(a), it is unnecessary for me to consider whether, under the Doré/Loyola framework” the decision was reasonable [35]. While Lauwers and Miller JJA concurred in result with respect to the first part of the framework, they dissented in the reasoning, pointing out a number of challenges with the Supreme Court’s framework–and actually declining to apply the second step of the framework at all. But they did not dissent on the bifurcated nature of the analysis, and at any rate, the comments on the framework were likely obiter. For the record, E.T. does not stand alone.

In Trinity Western, the Court conducted the same analysis as in E.T. It first cited the two-step test for freedom of religion claims [63], and then concluded that “[i]f, based on this test, s.2(a) is not engaged, there is nothing to balance.”

E.T. and Trinity Western basically introduce the typical bifurcated Charter analysis which applies to legislation to the judicial review context. A right must be engaged/infringed before moving to the s.1 justification analysis.  But this was not what Doré prescribed. It seemed to introduce a more holistic exercise, based around proportionality. In this way, Trinity Western seems like something qualitatively different than the balancing test employed in Doré—even if it does not embrace Oakes fully. In fact, it seems closer to Multani, a decision invoking the typical Charter tests applied to legislative challenges. That case predated Doré, and was roundly criticized by the Court.

All in all, this is good news for critics of Doré, but not for the predictability of the law on the whole. Doré was a dog of a decision, and much has been written criticizing it.  I have previously attacked Doré because it undermined the purposive approach to constitutional interpretation, and the symbiotic relationship between the tests developed in particular Charter provisions and the Oakes test. In fact, this was a feature of Rowe J’s opinion in Trinity Western. Other critics abound.

Perhaps this is an example of the law working itself pure.  Doré was unworkable, so lower courts (and the Supreme Court itself), simply relied on the existing tools of constitutional interpretation. This avoids many of the problems with Doré pointed to by critics, including the indeterminacy of a Charter “value” and what constitutes appropriate “balancing” under the Doré test.  The development also introduces a screening device for Charter claims. While all decision-makers have a requirement to consider Charter arguments, there should be no requirement to conduct a proportionality analysis in every case where a litigant invokes the Charter, because the Charter simply may not arise on the facts. In short, the approach puts the focus back on specific Charter rights and their purposes.

At the same time, Doré was supposed to solidify a completely revised relationship between administrative law and the Charter [30]. It was supposed to be a reflection of the anti-Diceyan approach to administrative law, allowing administrative decision-makers to “infuse” Charter values in the context of their statutory context and expertise [29]. Judicial review courts were not supposed to impose their understandings of constitutional law, their own tests, on administrative decision-makers.

I see this as yet another example where the Court has failed to clearly instruct lower courts and litigants. This is its modus operandi in administrative law. It fails to pick a lane and stay in it, and accordingly, it routinely says one thing and does another. Doré is no different—it counsels a merger of constitutional and administrative law, yet in practice it retains the classic approach it derided in Doré.  Lower courts are, understandably, relying on the analysis with which they are more familiar. A half-hearted balancing approach which is unclear on what must be balanced is unhelpful.

I am firmly on the side of letting Doré die. Its problems are evident, and the reliance interests are minimal—especially given the movement in lower courts and Trinity Western. But whatever the Court does with the case, it should do so convincingly. Doré is (almost) dead, but it comes at the cost of predictability. Is this the price of good doctrine in Canada?

 

Welcome, Mark Mancini

Introducing a co-blogger

For the last six-odd years, Double Aspect has mostly been a one-man show. (I have at times wondered whether the blog’s name was inappropriate as a result, but no one seemed to mind.) While it has been my privilege to welcome guest posts from time to time, and to co-host a blogging symposium on The Dunsmuir Decade, I have mostly carried the ball myself. But today I am very pleased to introduce Mark Mancini as a co-blogger.

Mark has just finished his clerkship at the Federal Court of Canada (where I clerked too, once upon a time), and is headed to the University of Chicago for an LLM. But while he is still in the process of adding letters after his name, Mark is already a rising star in Canadian public law. His work has appeared in the UNB Law Journal, on Advocates for the Rule of Law, and, just today, on the Admin Law Blog. Mark has also published a couple of posts on Double Aspect ― with a post on the Khadr settlement last year, and, more recently, an excellent contribution to the Dunsmuir symposium. In short, Mark is very much someone to keep an eye on ― and now you can do so right here on Double Aspect.

I know that, like me, Mark is committed to serious thinking about the law, and that he takes his responsibilities towards both doctrine and la doctrine very seriously indeed. I am confident that with him on board, Double Aspect will be better positioned to discharge these responsibilities, and that its quality, as well as output, will improve noticeably. Welcome, Mark!